[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Released GSA Docs Slam FBI Wiretap Proposal
"GSA Memos Reveal that FBI Wiretap Plan was
Opposed by Government's Top Telecomm Purchaser"
The New York Times reported today on a document obtained
by CPSR through the Freedom of Information Act. ("FBI's
Proposal on Wiretaps Draws Criticism from G.S.A.," New York
Times, January 15, 1993, p. A12)
The document, an internal memo prepared by the General
Services Administration, describes many problems with the
FBI's wiretap plan and also shows that the GSA strongly
opposed the sweeping proposal. The GSA is the largest
purchaser of telecommunications equipment in the federal
government.
The FBI wiretap proposal, first announced in March of
1992, would have required telephone manufacturers to design
all communications equipment to facilitate wire surveillance.
The proposal was defeated last year. The FBI has said that it
plans to reintroduce a similar proposal this year.
The documents were released to Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility, a public interest organization,
after CPSR submitted Freedom of Information Act requests
about the FBI's wiretap plan to several federal agencies last
year.
The documents obtained by CPSR reveal that the GSA,
which is responsible for equipment procurement for the
Federal government, strongly opposed two different versions
of the wiretap plan developed by the FBI. According to the
GSA, the FBI proposal would complicate interoperability,
increase cost, and diminish privacy and network security.
The GSA also stated that the proposal could "adversely
_affect national security._"
In the second memo, the GSA concluded that it would be a
mistake to give the Attorney General sole authority to waive
provisions of the bill.
The GSA's objections to the proposal were overruled by
the Office of Management and Budget, a branch of the White
House which oversees administrative agencies for the
President. However, none of GSA's objections were disclosed
to the public or made available to policy makers in
Washington.
Secrecy surrounds this proposal. Critical sections of a
report on the FBI wiretap plan prepared by the General
Accounting Office were earlier withhold after the FBI
designated these sections "National Security Information."
These sections included analysis by GAO on alternatives to
the FBI's wiretap plan. CPSR is also pursuing a FOIA lawsuit
to obtain the FBI's internal documents concerning the wiretap
proposal.
The GSA memos, the GAO report and others that CPSR is
now seeking indicate that there are many important documents
within the government which have still not been disclosed to
the public.
Marc Rotenberg
CPSR Washington office
[email protected]
Note: Underscores indicate underlining in the original text.
Dashes that go across pages indicate page breaks.
[Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a non-
profit, public interest membership organization. For
membership information about CPSR, contact
[email protected] or call 415/322-3778. For information
on CPSR's FOIA work, contact David Sobel at 202/544-9240
([email protected]).]
-------------------------------------------------------------
(#4A)
Control No. X92050405
Due Date: 5/5/92
Brenda Robinson (S)
After KMR consultations, we still _"cannnot support"_ Draft
Bill. No. 118 as substantially revised by Justice after its
purported full consideration of other agencies' "substantive
concerns."
Aside from the third paragraph of our 3/13/92 attachment
response for the original draft bill, which was adopted as
GSA's position (copy attached), Justice has failed to fully
address other major GSA concerns (i.e., technological changes
and associated costs).
Further, by merely eliminating the FCC and any discussion of
cost issues in the revision, we can not agree as contended by
Justice that it now " ... takes care of kinds of problems
raised by FCC and others ...."
Finally, the revision gives Justice sole unilateral exclusive
authority to enforce and except or waive the provisions of
any resultant Iaw in Federal District Courts. Our other
concerns are also shown in the current attachment for the
revised draft bill.
Once again OMB has not allowed sufficient time for a more
through review, a comprehensive internal staffing, or a
formal response.
/Signature/
Wm. R. Loy KMR 5/5/92
Info: K(Peay),KD,KA,KB,KE,KG,KV,KM,KMP,KMR,R/F,LP-Rm.4002
(O/F) - 9C1h (2) (a) - File (#4A)
-------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT
REVISED JUSTICE DRAFT BILL
DIGITAL TELEPHONY
The proposed legislation could have a widespread impact on
the government's ability to acquire _new_ telecommunications
equipment and provide electronic communications services.
_Existing_ Federal government telecommunications resources
will be affected by the proposed new technology techniques
and equipment. An incompatibility and interoperability of
existing Federal government telecommunications system, and
resources would result due to the new technological changes
proposed.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been removed
from the legislation, but the Justice implementation may
require modifications to the "Communications Act of 1934,"
and other FCC policies and regulations to remove
inconsistencies. This could also cause an unknown effect on
the wire and electronic communications systems operations,
services, equipment, and regulations within the Federal
government. Further, to change a major portion of the United
States telecommunications infrastructure (the public switched
network within eighteen months and others within three years)
seems very optimistic, no matter how trivial or minimal the
proposed modifications are to implement.
In the proposed legislation the Attorney General has sole
_unilateral exclusive_ authority to enforce, grant exceptions
or waive the provisions of any resultant law and enforce it
in Federal District Courts. The Attorney General would, as
appropriate, only "consult" with the FCC, Department of
Commerce, or Small Business Administration. The Attorney
General has exclusive authority in Section 2 of the
legislation; it appears the Attorney General has taken over
several FCC functions and placed the FCC in a mere consulting
capacity.
The proposed legislation would apply to all forms of wire and
electronic communications to include computer data bases,
facsimile, imagery etc., as well as voice transmissions.
The proposed legislation would assist eavesdropping by law
enforcement, but it would also apply to users who acquire the
technology capability and make it easier for criminals,
terrorists, foreign intelligence (spies) and computer hackers
to electronically penetrate the public network and pry into
areas previously not open to snooping. This situation of
easier access due to new technology changes could therefore
affect _national security_.
(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed legislation does not address standards and
specifications for telecommunications equipment nor security
considerations. These issues must be addressed as they effect
both the government and private industry. There are also
civil liberty implications and the public's constitutional
rights to privacy which are not mentioned.
it must be noted that equipment already exists that can be
used to wiretap the digital communications lines and support
court- authorized wiretaps, criminal investigations and
probes of voice communications. The total number of
interception applications authorized within the United States
(Federal and State) has been averaging under nine hundred per
year. There is concern that the proposed changes are not cost
effective and worth the effort to revamp all the existing and
new telecommunications systems.
The proposed bill would have to have the FCC or another
agency approve or reject new telephone equipment mainly on
the basis of whether the FBI has the capability to wiretap
it. The federal- approval process is normally lengthy and the
United States may not be able to keep pace with foreign
industries to develop new technology and install secure
communications. As a matter of interest, the proposed
restrictive new technology could impede the United States'
ability to compete in digital telephony and participate in
the international trade arena.
Finally, there will be unknown associated costs to implement
the proposed new technological procedures and equipment.
These costs would be borne by the Federal government,
consumers, and all other communications ratepayers to finance
the effort. Both the Federal government and private industry
communications regular phone service, data transmissions,
satellite and microwave transmissions, and encrypted
communications could be effected at increased costs.
(2)
=============================================================
Documents disclosed to Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR), under the Freedom of Information Act
December 1992
=============================================================